Traditionally, service calls for power outages and other power problems have been diagnosed in a similar manner. A customer experiences an event, the customer calls in the event to the power utility, and a crew is dispatched from the utility to determine the source of the problem. Unfortunately, it can be expensive to physically send a crew to a site for every diagnostic. This is also the traditional model for other utility and service providers as well, such as cable and satellite television providers, telephone service providers, water and gas providers, and the like. Accordingly, the costs of providing these services could be reduced with an automated and/or remote diagnostic system.
As part of automating their processes, some utilities and other service providers have employed end point devices (such as meters, for example) with an ability to communicate to a mobile or fixed hub or collector. Many of these end point devices are configured to broadcast usage information, and the like, to the hub, using one-way communication (e.g., Automatic Meter Reading (AMR)). Some “smart” end point devices, however, are also able to receive and respond to limited inquiries from a hub device. Many of the end point devices (and hubs) capable of one-way or two-way communication transfer messages using particular technologies and/or proprietary communication protocols. For example, some devices may communicate via power line carrier while others may use wireless technologies such as cellular, Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi™), or the like. Consequently, utilities may use multiple different communication technologies and/or protocols across their service areas due to upgrades, expansions, and the like, occurring over the years. Integration of such a heterogeneous network of devices and communication systems can add layers of difficulty to a comprehensive communication scheme, and thus, complicate an effort to automate the diagnosis of power problems within the service area.
Additionally, some utilities and service providers make use of intelligent map systems (i.e., geographic information systems (GISs)) that generally provide data as well as graphic displays regarding assets associated with a service area. For example, an intelligent map system may graphically show a utility's assets (e.g., transformers, isolation devices, regulators, capacitor banks, service points, etc.) on a map-like display, and store attributes associated to each of these assets in a related database. Attributes may include an operational status (e.g., whether the asset is on-line or off-line, etc.), a monetary value of the asset, specifications of the asset (e.g., voltage, phase, winding configuration, current rating, etc.), and the like. Further, the intelligent map system may display the asset in a particular manner (e.g., color, highlighting, line type, etc.) based on a value of one or more of the attributes associated with the asset. Thus, by using an intelligent map system, a utility may streamline processes involving access to and updating of information about the utility's service area by utility personnel.
Some utilities and service providers use an intelligent map system to track service calls. For example, when a customer calls in an event (e.g., a power outage, etc.), service personnel may change an attribute associated with an asset connected to the event (such as a meter, transformer, service point, etc.). Changing the attribute may then result in the asset being displayed in a different manner on the map, thereby marking the location of the event on the map. Multiple calls from customers may result in a pattern of marked assets that can help target a physical location to investigate when diagnosing a service area problem. Since such a system relies on customer reports, however, it may not be timely or accurate. For example, customers may not report an event or they may report it inaccurately. Even with accurate reporting, such a system may have limitations. For example, such a system still 1) is labor and time intensive; 2) is reactive rather than proactive, possibly resulting in delays in service restoration; and 3) does not provide for verification of service restoration, since most customers do not call a service provider to report a restoration of service.